I filed my return on time and then revised it. CPC has ignored the original, treated the revised return as my first return, and charged s.234F fee and s.234A interest. Can that be undone?
Yes. The Mumbai Bench found that the original return had been filed within the s.139(1) due date and that CPC and the CIT(A) had simply ignored it, and deleted both the Rs 5,000 fee under s.234F and the interest under s.234A charged on the footing that the revised return's date was the date of filing. Revising a return does not make a timely return late.
Decided by the ITAT (Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member) on 2022-07-22, reported as ITA No. 2100/Mum/2021, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench); heard 21 June 2022, pronounced 22 July 2022. It bears on section 234F, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C, section 143(1), section 139(1), section 139(5), section 90, section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and Penalty matters.
This is one of the commonest automated errors at CPC and it is worth knowing that it is fixable rather than final. The s.234F fee is levied for failure to furnish the return within the time prescribed in s.139(1); if the original return was in time, no fee arises, whatever happens later under s.139(5). The order is equally useful for establishing that a s.234F levy carried in a s.143(1) intimation is not beyond challenge — it went to the CIT(A) under s.246A and then to the Tribunal, and was deleted there on merits. Note the s.234F rates: from assessment year 2018-19 the fee was Rs 5,000 if the return was furnished by 31 December of the assessment year and Rs 10,000 otherwise, with the proviso capping it at Rs 1,000 where total income does not exceed Rs 5 lakh. The Finance Act 2021 removed the Rs 10,000 slab, so for assessment year 2021-22 onwards it is Rs 5,000, or Rs 1,000 for total income up to Rs 5 lakh. Anyone quoting Rs 10,000 as the current figure is working from the pre-2021 text — and so, at the date I checked, was the department's own section page. The same fact pattern also cost this assessee his foreign tax credit, because the CIT(A) measured the Form 67 filing date against the wrong return.
Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The assessee, an individual resident and ordinarily resident in India for assessment year 2018-19 and also resident in the United Kingdom for calendar year 2017, filed his return of income on 23 August 2018 against a due date of 31 August 2018, declaring total income of Rs 1,02,13,440 and claiming foreign tax credit under article 24(2) of the India-UK treaty read with s.90. Form 67 was filed electronically on 16 August 2018, before the original return. The return was revised on 7 February 2019 declaring total income of Rs 1,01,40,310, with a fresh Form 67 filed the same day claiming credit of Rs 18,66,501. CPC processed the revised return by intimation dated 18 March 2021, denied the foreign tax credit, disallowed depreciation of Rs 1,492 claimed in the wrong schedule, and charged interest under s.234A, s.234B and s.234C together with fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F shown at serial 39D — treating the revised return filed on 7 February 2019 as the original return and ignoring the return of 23 August 2018 altogether. The CIT(A) (NFAC) dismissed the appeal, holding that Form 67 had been filed beyond the due date contrary to rule 128, and confirmed the interest and the fee. A rectification application under s.154 filed on 21 April 2021 was still unattended at the date of hearing.
The appeal was partly allowed. The lower authorities grossly erred in holding that the assessee had not filed a return and Form 67 before the due date; the original return of 23 August 2018 and the Form 67 of 16 August 2018 were both on record and were ignored, so foreign tax credit was directed to be granted (para 011). Interest under s.234A of Rs 24,648 was deleted because the return had been filed in time (para 013). Fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F was deleted, because the assessee had filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the year (para 015). Interest under s.234B and s.234C was held consequential and remitted for recomputation (para 014). The disallowance of depreciation of Rs 1,492 was upheld, the Bench agreeing with the CIT(A) that in an e-filed return it is the assessee's duty to put the correct amount in the correct column (para 012).
The Bench found as a fact from the paper book — the acknowledgement at page 18 and the computation at page 19 — that the original return had been filed on 23 August 2018 within the due date, with relief under s.90 claimed in it and Form 67 filed on 16 August 2018, and that the revised return of 7 February 2019 was expressly acknowledged as a revised return referring back to the original. Both CPC and the CIT(A) had ignored the original return altogether, the CIT(A) doing so notwithstanding that the assessee's written submission set out the complete facts and the acknowledgement number, which the appellate authority itself reproduced (para 011). Once that fact was restored, each of the consequences fell away as a matter of arithmetic rather than construction: s.234A interest is charged for delay in furnishing the return and there was no delay (para 013), and the s.234F fee is charged where the return is not furnished within the time prescribed in s.139(1) and it was (para 015). The depreciation disallowance was upheld on a different footing, that the claim had been entered in the schedule for undertakings engaged in generation and distribution of power when the assessee was in no such business.
Ground number 6 is with respect to charging of fees u/s 234F of the act of ₹ 5000. We find that as the assessee has filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the impugned assessment year, the above fee is not leviable. Hence, we delete the same.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. The Mumbai Bench found that the original return had been filed within the s.139(1) due date and that CPC and the CIT(A) had simply ignored it, and deleted both the Rs 5,000 fee under s.234F and the interest under s.234A charged on the footing that the revised return's date was the date of filing. Revising a return does not make a timely return late. This was decided by the ITAT (Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member) and bears on section 234F, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C, section 143(1), section 139(1), section 139(5), section 90, section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as ITA No. 2100/Mum/2021, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench); heard 21 June 2022, pronounced 22 July 2022. This is one of the commonest automated errors at CPC and it is worth knowing that it is fixable rather than final. The s.234F fee is levied for failure to furnish the return within the time prescribed in s.139(1); if the original return was in time, no fee arises, whatever happens later under s.139(5). The order is equally useful for establishing that a s.234F levy carried in a s.143(1) intimation is not beyond challenge — it went to the CIT(A) under s.246A and then to the Tribunal, and was deleted there on merits. Note the s.234F rates: from assessment year 2018-19 the fee was Rs 5,000 if the return was furnished by 31 December of the assessment year and Rs 10,000 otherwise, with the proviso capping it at Rs 1,000 where total income does not exceed Rs 5 lakh. The Finance Act 2021 removed the Rs 10,000 slab, so for assessment year 2021-22 onwards it is Rs 5,000, or Rs 1,000 for total income up to Rs 5 lakh. Anyone quoting Rs 10,000 as the current figure is working from the pre-2021 text — and so, at the date I checked, was the department's own section page. The same fact pattern also cost this assessee his foreign tax credit, because the CIT(A) measured the Form 67 filing date against the wrong return. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Put the acknowledgement of the ORIGINAL return in front of the officer — acknowledgement number and date — and the acknowledgement of the revised return showing it as a revised return under s.139(5). That is exactly what turned this case.
The assessee, an individual resident and ordinarily resident in India for assessment year 2018-19 and also resident in the United Kingdom for calendar year 2017, filed his return of income on 23 August 2018 against a due date of 31 August 2018, declaring total income of Rs 1,02,13,440 and claiming foreign tax credit under article 24(2) of the India-UK treaty read with s.90. Form 67 was filed electronically on 16 August 2018, before the original return. The return was revised on 7 February 2019 declaring total income of Rs 1,01,40,310, with a fresh Form 67 filed the same day claiming credit of Rs 18,66,501. CPC processed the revised return by intimation dated 18 March 2021, denied the foreign tax credit, disallowed depreciation of Rs 1,492 claimed in the wrong schedule, and charged interest under s.234A, s.234B and s.234C together with fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F shown at serial 39D — treating the revised return filed on 7 February 2019 as the original return and ignoring the return of 23 August 2018 altogether. The CIT(A) (NFAC) dismissed the appeal, holding that Form 67 had been filed beyond the due date contrary to rule 128, and confirmed the interest and the fee. A rectification application under s.154 filed on 21 April 2021 was still unattended at the date of hearing. The matter was decided on 2022-07-22 by the ITAT (Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member). On those facts the ITAT held as follows. The appeal was partly allowed. The lower authorities grossly erred in holding that the assessee had not filed a return and Form 67 before the due date; the original return of 23 August 2018 and the Form 67 of 16 August 2018 were both on record and were ignored, so foreign tax credit was directed to be granted (para 011). Interest under s.234A of Rs 24,648 was deleted because the return had been filed in time (para 013). Fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F was deleted, because the assessee had filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the year (para 015). Interest under s.234B and s.234C was held consequential and remitted for recomputation (para 014). The disallowance of depreciation of Rs 1,492 was upheld, the Bench agreeing with the CIT(A) that in an e-filed return it is the assessee's duty to put the correct amount in the correct column (para 012).
The Bench found as a fact from the paper book — the acknowledgement at page 18 and the computation at page 19 — that the original return had been filed on 23 August 2018 within the due date, with relief under s.90 claimed in it and Form 67 filed on 16 August 2018, and that the revised return of 7 February 2019 was expressly acknowledged as a revised return referring back to the original. Both CPC and the CIT(A) had ignored the original return altogether, the CIT(A) doing so notwithstanding that the assessee's written submission set out the complete facts and the acknowledgement number, which the appellate authority itself reproduced (para 011). Once that fact was restored, each of the consequences fell away as a matter of arithmetic rather than construction: s.234A interest is charged for delay in furnishing the return and there was no delay (para 013), and the s.234F fee is charged where the return is not furnished within the time prescribed in s.139(1) and it was (para 015). The depreciation disallowance was upheld on a different footing, that the claim had been entered in the schedule for undertakings engaged in generation and distribution of power when the assessee was in no such business. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "Ground number 6 is with respect to charging of fees u/s 234F of the act of ₹ 5000. We find that as the assessee has filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the impugned assessment year, the above fee is not leviable. Hence, we delete the same."
It was decided by the ITAT on 2022-07-22 and is reported as ITA No. 2100/Mum/2021, assessment year 2018-19 (ITAT Mumbai 'C' Bench); heard 21 June 2022, pronounced 22 July 2022. Binding on the AO and CIT(A) within the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A Tribunal decision binds the assessing officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) within that Tribunal's jurisdiction, and is persuasive before other benches. It is not binding on a High Court, and a contrary co-ordinate bench decision will be argued against you, so check whether the point has been taken the other way before you build a reply around it. On section 234F, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C, section 143(1), section 139(1), section 139(5), section 90, section 32, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. The appeal was partly allowed. The lower authorities grossly erred in holding that the assessee had not filed a return and Form 67 before the due date; the original return of 23 August 2018 and the Form 67 of 16 August 2018 were both on record and were ignored, so foreign tax credit was directed to be granted (para 011). Interest under s.234A of Rs 24,648 was deleted because the return had been filed in time (para 013). Fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F was deleted, because the assessee had filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the year (para 015). Interest under s.234B and s.234C was held consequential and remitted for recomputation (para 014). The disallowance of depreciation of Rs 1,492 was upheld, the Bench agreeing with the CIT(A) that in an e-filed return it is the assessee's duty to put the correct amount in the correct column (para 012). It arises in Assessment & Scrutiny, Appeals and Penalty matters, on section 234F, section 234A, section 234B, section 234C, section 143(1), section 139(1), section 139(5), section 90, section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Prashant Maharishi, Accountant Member and Kavitha Rajagopal, Judicial Member. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Read the s.143(1) intimation for the date it records as 'date of filing of return'. Where CPC has picked up the revised-return date, the s.234F fee, s.234A interest and any due-date-linked claim such as Form 67 or a Chapter VI-A deduction will all be wrong together, and should be taken as one set of grounds. File the s.154 rectification, but do not let the appeal period run while it is pending — the assessee here had a rectification application from April 2021 still unattended when the Tribunal heard the matter in 2022. Appeal the s.234F levy; do not treat it as unappealable. It was taken as a distinct ground before the CIT(A) and the Tribunal and deleted as such. Check which s.234F slab actually applies to your year before conceding the amount — the Rs 10,000 limb is gone from assessment year 2021-22, and the Rs 1,000 cap applies whenever total income does not exceed Rs 5 lakh.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. The citator returns nothing and a name search returns only the order itself - no later Tribunal decision, no Bombay High Court appeal. The holding that a return filed within the section 139(5) window and treated as a revised return cannot attract the section 234F fee as though the original had been filed late has not been taken up, followed or questioned by any later Bench. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The report is internally inconsistent on several facts and a reader should not rely on its dates without checking. Para 06 says the revised return was processed 'under Section 143(3)' where the whole order otherwise treats it as an intimation under s.143(1). Para 09 says the revised return was filed 'on 7th October, 2019' while paras 05, 06 and 011 give 7 February 2019. Paras 07 and 011 record the due date as 31 August 2019 while para 04 gives it as 31 August 2018, which is the date consistent with assessment year 2018-19 and with the finding that the return filed on 23 August 2018 was in time. The UK salary appears as Rs 68,77,360 in para 03 and Rs 60,77,630 in para 011, and the foreign tax credit claimed as Rs 23,13,566 in the original return and Rs 18,66,501 in the revised. Para 06 refers to 'Circular no. 35 of intimation under Section 143(1)', which is not a coherent reference. None of this touches the s.234F holding, which turns on the single fact that the original return was filed on 23 August 2018 against a due date of 31 August 2018. On the statutory position stated in why_it_matters: I sourced the current Rs 5,000 / Rs 1,000 figures to the department's own 'Interest and Fees' page, which shows only those two amounts. The department's section-text pages at incometaxindia.gov.in/w/section-234f and /w/section-234f-10 both still carry the pre-2021 text including the omitted Rs 10,000 clause (b), so neither should be quoted as the current section. I did not retrieve the Finance Act 2021 amending clause itself. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The appeal was partly allowed. The lower authorities grossly erred in holding that the assessee had not filed a return and Form 67 before the due date; the original return of 23 August 2018 and the Form 67 of 16 August 2018 were both on record and were ignored, so foreign tax credit was directed to be granted (para 011). Interest under s.234A of Rs 24,648 was deleted because the return had been filed in time (para 013). Fee of Rs 5,000 under s.234F was deleted, because the assessee had filed his return of income within the due date prescribed for the year (para 015). Interest under s.234B and s.234C was held consequential and remitted for recomputation (para 014). The disallowance of depreciation of Rs 1,492 was upheld, the Bench agreeing with the CIT(A) that in an e-filed return it is the assessee's duty to put the correct amount in the correct column (para 012).
TaxSphere, “Prashant Vijay Kale v CPC, Bengaluru”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/prashant-vijay-kale-v-cpc-234f-revised-return-treated-as-original/ (validity last checked 2026-09-07)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
CPC denied my s.11(2) accumulation because Form 10 was filed after the s.139(1) due date, and the CIT(A) said s.13(9) settles it. Can the Tribunal still help me?
I paid the whole tax before the due date but filed the return eleven months late. The Assessing Officer has still charged interest under s.234A. Can he?
The officer has charged interest under s.40 of the Black Money Act on top of the tax. Is there any machinery for it, and can I still fight the quantum in the appeal against the rectification order?
My institution filed its audit report on time but in Form 10B when Form 10BB was the right form, and the CPC has denied the exemption and raised a demand on the gross receipts. Is filing the wrong audit form fatal?
